The Language of Paradox by Sherman Alexie - Essay Example

Essay There has been a great deal of interest in the nature of poetic language. Brooks’ “The Language of Paradox” refers to an earlier prominent literary theorist and critic, Coleridge …reveals itself in the balance or reconcilement of opposite discordant qualities: of sameness, with difference; of the general, with the concrete; the idea with the image; the individual, with the representative; the sense of novelty and freshness, with old and familiar objects, a more than usual state of emotion, with more than usual order…(Brooks 40) Poetic language reconciles opposites, according to Coleridge and this is a perfect example of paradox. According to Cleanth Brooks, “paradox is the language appropriate and inevitable to poetry” (p.1), as he explains it in his seminal essays on literary theory and criticism “The Language of Paradox” in his “Well Wrought Urn”. Paradox is used to present contradictions, irony and highlight the implications in a situation, relationship, themes, and so on. The poem “On the Amtrak from Boston to New York City” by Sherman Alexie is analyzed based on Cleanth Brooks’ notion of paradox in the language of poetry. Sherman Alexie presents a Native American narrator in the poem. The title suggests that it is about an experience on board a train from Boston to New York City, but the poem goes deeper than that. The poem opens with a reference to a “white woman”. “The white woman across the aisle from me says, “Look, look at all the history, that house on the hill there is over two hundred years old,” as she points out the window past me” (lines 1-4). On the surface level, this is just an account of what the white woman said, her curiosity about a particular old house and its historical significance. However, the meaning of the old house is different for the two people, the white woman and the native American. This difference is brought out in the following lines when the narrator says that American history: “is 15,000 years older than the corners of the house that sits museumed on the hill” (lines 9-11). As Cleanth Brooks says, “the terms are continually modifying each other, and thus violating their dictionary meanings” (p.9), the word “history” get modified by the words “sits museumed” to convey a fragmented meaning of history. Unlike what the white woman believes, history dates back thousands of years, which is ignored or simply forgotten. So the phrase “all the history” by the white woman, when she refers to the house becomes meaningless or contradictory to the idea of the narrator. The “old house” becomes a metaphor for the interpretation of American history by the whites and it being “museumed” is quite ironical. Also, “past me” can be considered as a paradox here because the narrator stands an evidence or a representation of centuries old American history, but the white woman notices something past the narrator, may be missing the real ‘history’. as she points out the window past me Into what she has been taught (lines 4,5) The word “history” in the second line gets modified again as Brooks says, in this context meaning what she has been taught, a subject, but so limited as the actual or the original history is overlooked by the white woman. “History” is a paradox with different implications for the two persons in the poem. Yet another paradox is found between “what she has been taught” and “I have learnt”. The poet juxtaposes them to showcase the paradox. little more about American history …than what I expected and far less Of what we should all know of the tribal stories (lines 6-9) The above lines present, though not an oxymoron, but a contradictory pair of descriptions, one which is “more than expected” and the other “far less”, quite paradoxical to convey the stark truth of the difficulty in learning the real history. The next two stanzas talk about the narrators reaction at heart to the white woman’s mention of “Walden pond” (line 11). The irony is that there is not just one but many such ponds, which is brought out in the lines, there are five Walden Ponds … Or at least a hundred more surrounding Spokane(lines 14-16). The contrast in the beliefs and knowledge of two people, the white woman and the narrator is presented here and is a paradox according to Brooks. He says “paradoxes insist on the irony, rather than the wonder” (1949, p. 9), which clearly applies to this section in the poem, where one person displays wonder and the other sounds ironical. Such a paradox is seen throughout the poem. Also, “the city I pretend to call my home” (line 17) is not a mere adjective phrase but a heightened contrast between “home” and “my little reservation” (line 15). The following untold response of the narrator analyses the irony behind “saving” something that already belongs to someone else. The word “save” becomes a paradox, quite ironical as it is seen as a description of an act of further taking something away from its owners and giving it a different identity, as what has happened to the Walden Pond. The narrator says, I know the Indians were living stories around that pond before Walden’s grandparents were born and before his grandparents’ grandparents were born. I’m tired of hearing about Don-fucking-Henley saving it, too, because that’s redundant. If Don Henley’s brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers hadn’t come here in the first place then nothing would need to be saved (lines 18-24) Without the paradox, the opinion and sincere feelings of the narrator about the Native American life and history would not have been conveyed more effectively. The contradictions between what the narrator “could have told her” and what the narrator “really did”, what he “I thought to bring” but what he “really did” are clearly drawn. Though so much went on in the mind of the narrator, he did not respond as the woman “smiled so much” (line 27), with connotative meaning implying ignorance of the white woman. It could refer to the poetic line “ignorance is bliss”, but the same had caused a violent reaction in the narrator’s mind earlier, which is a paradox. The idea in the ensuing stanza is about the narrator’s assimilation into American culture and life style. The words “tasteless” describing the “sandwich” that he eats conveys the uncomfortable change due to assimilation. The previous line “I respect elders of every color” (line 29) contrasts the cultural background and attitude of the narrator to the food habit after assimilation. The values they hold and the American culture they have adopted are juxtaposed. Americanization is conveyed in these lines. The phrase “nod my head” gains a different meaning in this context, more than a physical act, to live in acceptance. On the other hand, the white woman is so excited and points out with wonder at “another little piece of her country’s history” (line 33) as against the ironical outlook of the narrator. The use of the possessive pronoun “her” heightens the contrast which begins in the first stanza, when the word “history” is first used. There are “her country’s history” and the history that the narrator knows about, which are quite the opposite, the first being insufficient and the second more than expected. Walden pond and the old house are metaphors of this contradictions in American history, and the restrained identities. They too are not what they in reality are; they are celebrated as historical symbols, but past the living representations; museumed buildings are looked upon with wonder than the living natives. One is ignorant and the other is aware. The poem builds in a lot of paradoxes, juxtaposing ignorance with awareness, history with truth and expectation with reality. The poem presents these opposites that lie very close to the theme, which is about acculturation or assimilation of the natives into the mainstream culture of America, still aware of their history but accept the mainstream history, and live with it. To avoid being pushed to the reservations, they tend to act what they do not want to be, in reality be someone they actually are not. This is the huge paradox lying at the heart of the poem. The title yields subtle interpretations and the train journey becomes a metaphor for the process of assimilation that every Native American undergoes. Metaphor is a paradox according to Brooks. He says The poet must work by analogies, but the metaphors do not lie in the same plane or fit neatly edge to edge. There is a continual tilting of the planes; necessary overlappings, discrepancies, contradictions. Even the most direct and simple poet is forced into paradoxes far more often than we think, if we are sufficiently alive to what he is doing (p.8). In addition to the metaphor of travel, the cities Boston and New York now take on opposite colors as they keep getting modified with the meaning of the poem. The narrator moves from Native culture to Americanization, i.e. from the East to the New York City. The East taught history of the Natives and tribal stories, but as the journey proceeds towards New York, it is only “tasteless sandwich “and “Diet Pepsi”; all that the narrator could do was to plan for what I would do and say the next time Somebody from the enemy thought I was one of them (lines 35,36) A plain contrast is shown in “enemy”, referring to the white woman, for whom the narrator “thought to bring” “an orange juice” and feel “respect” for the age. The desire is to show the difference; the narrator is not “one of them”. This is an example of language of paradox as it draws distinct difference in the ideology, culture, beliefs and assumptions. What makes the white woman think the narrator “one of them” is the Americanization of the Native American narrator as seen in the appearance and habits but the thoughts and inner reactions are the contrary but invisible. Again this refers to the theme of the poem, the forced Americanization and assimilation that Natives undergo. This is ironical as it never influences their thoughts to be American. Throughout, the language is one of reflection and critical response full of paradoxes, metaphors and cultural symbols to heighten the difference between cultures and describe the process of assimilation. The metaphorical journey leaves the narrator contemplating on next steps, of how to efficiently handle enemies, than just cover the real responses with false nods and silence. The underlying paradox is in the irony that a white woman points out pieces that make history to the person whose history has been entwined with it for thousands of years. Bibliography Brooks, Cleanth. "The Language of Paradox", in Cleanth Brooks, The Well Wrought Urn. London: Dobson, 1949, pp.3-20. Alexie, Sherman. “On the Amtrak from Boston to New York City”. Native American Literature and Culture. n.d. Dec. 8 2009 Read More